(06-17-2019 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 11:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 11:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  What about if this research is obtained via criminal means? Still fair game if factual/true?

Somebody please clarify something for me. I'm not aware that the Trump campaign every actually GOT any information from foreign sources.
I'm aware that Manafort allegedly GAVE polling information to someone who was Russian.
I'm aware that information was publicly disclosed by Wikileaks.
But neither of those would constitute the Trump campaign's actually GETTING information FROM foreign sources. Somebody help me, explain what I am missing.

I presume you mean, like from a break in.
In that case, the break in should the punished. The info, if true and verifiable, should be usable.
Take the case of a Ukrainian coming to a campaign, and saying, Mr. X watches child porn, and I can prove it. Should the information be buriesd because it came from a Ukrainian? Should we just stand by and let a pedophile be elected just because we learned of it from a foreigner?
Additionally, does it matter if the source is Australian, Austrian, or Ugandan?
What if the info comes from an American in ISIS?
Hillary is not wrong for seeking info from foreigners - she is wrong is using info she knows to be at best unverified, and at worst, false.

Valid questions. But mine is to be addressed before you actually get to that point. Before it matters from what source you got information, you actually have to establish that some information was gotten. And that's what I'm questioning.

Maybe the Russians did or did not hack the DNC. I've still not seen any evidence that proves conclusively that they did, and there are certainly some credible alternative theories. I don't doubt that they tried, just as I don't doubt that they wanted to interfere in our election process. What I'm not sure of is to what end. I suspect it was simply to be disruptive, and on that front they clearly succeeded. I don't know that they would have picked sides, or any reason why they would have. Except that if the objective was to be disruptive, and one candidate was 90% certain to win, the efforts would certainly have been directed primarily against that certain winner. I don't see anything indicative of any sort of quid pro quo conspiracy. Whatever the Russians did, I'm 99% certain that they were going to do precisely that with or without Donald Trump. Wikileaks was always going to release whatever they released. That's who they are and what they do.

I have wondered if maybe the democrats did not feel a need to create some narrative that Russians intervened only because of Trump. Clearly if the truth is that Russia has always tried to hack and interfere, that makes it pretty obvious that they almost certainly hacked Hillary.

ALL of this.

To your question 93 (in the clearly related hypothetical)...

If a criminal is caught breaking into an office and finds evidence of a crime by the company, the criminal clearly got the information through illegal means. If they offered it to reduce their sentence, the prosecutor would ask what evidence they had and perhaps make a deal... using that 'illegally obtained' evidence against the company because it was not obtained 'by an agent' of the prosecutor's office... someone acting on behalf of the government.

This isn't my area so I could be wrong... but I don't think so...

That's the prosecutor's office. Why would a candidate for office who is still a private citizen be held to a higher standard?

The issue is whether the person using the information conspired with the person who lifted it -- doesnt matter whether the person who lifted it was foreign or not.

If the person using the information entered into a 'quid pro quo', criminal liability attaches.

The juicier one is whether the parties never entered into 'an arrangement' for the material to be lifted.

Interestingly enough, the progressives are all for Chelsea Manning's and Snowden's results being thrown out into the world domain. And for those individuals themselves being shown a great deal of restraint.

The issue of using information one knows to be purloined is a moral one --- honestly I cant see a downside to using it. If it is stuff that gets someone 'hacked off' that it got disclosed, odds are there is public good for disclosing and using the info.

In OO's example, the issue of whether a candidate is pedo seems to touch this base pretty well. Of course the candidate will get upset at this --- it shows them in a bad light. And to be honest, in that vein the more honesty and more disclosure the better.

In the opposite polarity, if the info is stuff like yoga and soccer practice schedules, the aggrieved party isnt really going to get into a gander about this. It devolves into a 'who cares' scenario.

In the third bucket is truthful information that is valuable, but not detrimental. In the military sense this would be like 'the plans for D-Day' and breakdowns of troop strengths. In the political sense, this stuff is either easily ascertainable (most campaigns *know* the numbers of workers and where in the opposite camp, and the candidates own words and ads tell you what their 'strategy is'.) For the most part, this would be 'interesting', but most likely far from earth-shattering.

If one says donor lists and amounts, that could be a basket to protect -- but this info *should* be public knowledge anyway through FEC filings. If it hasn't -- place this in the 'info that really should get out.' Especially with a Democrat being hacked since they are insistent on this being legislated to oblivion in the first place.

So for me it boils down to 'did the campaign act in concert for the original stealing'. As opposed to whether the cat burglar was domestic or foreign.